Chegwyn, R (on the application of) v Standards Board for England

Disqualification from local-government office is the most severe available sanction and requires a finding, properly explained, that the member’s conduct falls within the serious cases warranting disqualification. A tribunal must engage with the member’s account of their state of mind, particularly where the guidance identifies deliberate personal gain, misuse of position or deliberate breach as relevant circumstances. Re-election is relevant, but its weight depends on whether the electorate can fairly be taken to have considered the misconduct. Under section 78A of the Local Government Act 2000 and the applicable regulations, disqualification may be limited to the authority concerned; it need not necessarily extend to every authority of which the member is a member.

The claimant, a councillor and organiser of a music festival through his company, admitted failing to declare and withdraw from consideration of a council motion concerning the festival. A Case Tribunal of the Adjudication Panel for England imposed two years’ disqualification from being or becoming a councillor. The claimant appealed under section 78B(4) of the Local Government Act 2000.

The central issues were whether the tribunal had properly assessed his culpability and explanation, whether re-election affected the sanction, and whether any disqualification had to extend beyond the authority whose code had been breached.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The tribunal’s decision to impose disqualification was set aside. The admitted breaches were serious and amounted to a gross error of judgment, but the tribunal had not explained why it rejected the claimant’s account that he had acted from concern for local businesses and ticket holders rather than from personal financial gain or deliberate misuse of office.
2. The tribunal’s conclusion that the claimant had deliberately disregarded the Code and deliberately sought to misuse his position was fundamental to its decision. Without adequate reasoning for rejecting his explanation, the conclusion that the circumstances fell within the guidance for disqualification was unreasonable. The guidance indicated that disqualification was appropriate only in cases showing the requisite serious culpability, including deliberate personal gain, deliberate misuse of position, repeated breaches or comparable conduct.
3. Re-election is a relevant consideration, but its weight depends on the circumstances. In Sanders v Kingston, substantial weight was appropriate because the electorate had been directly apprised of the conduct. Here, the election campaign involved competing allegations, so the election could not fairly be treated as approval of the admitted breach. The approach in Mullaney v the Adjudication Panel was applicable.
4. On construction of section 78A(4)(c) of the Local Government Act 2000 and regulation 3(k) of the Case Tribunals (England) Regulations 2008, the tribunal may disqualify a person from the authority concerned or from any other relevant authority. It is not legally required to impose disqualification from every authority of which the person is a member. The contrary view accepted in Sloam v Standards Board for England and R (Hathaway) v Ethical Standards Officer was not followed.
5. Suspension was appropriate. Taking account of the approximately three weeks already served under the disqualification, a two-month suspension from the Gosport authority was substituted. The claimant remained a member of Hampshire County Council. Costs were awarded to the claimant in the sum of £4,697.85.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal against the Case Tribunal’s sanction, substituted a two-month suspension from the Gosport authority, and awarded costs of £4,697.85.